RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge

RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/23/2009 12:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Crush However, they have lost credibility and value, easily evidenced by their financial troubles and by http://www.timeswatch.org/ which documents the biases and well, incompleteness of reporting, of the NYT. And you lost all credibility when you tried to fob off the MRC as a respectable organization. Just a hint for the future, organizations that announce at their formation the conclusion of the research they haven't yet conducted are frauds and should never ever be put forth as credible sources. Excuse me? Are their stories true or not? You might not like their spin, but the facts are the facts. Of course, I'm sure you'll counter something from Media Matters or MoveOn.org

rulemylife -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/23/2009 1:26:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Crush However, they have lost credibility and value, easily evidenced by their financial troubles and by http://www.timeswatch.org/ which documents the biases and well, incompleteness of reporting, of the NYT. And you lost all credibility when you tried to fob off the MRC as a respectable organization. Just a hint for the future, organizations that announce at their formation the conclusion of the research they haven't yet conducted are frauds and should never ever be put forth as credible sources. Excuse me? Are their stories true or not? You might not like their spin, but the facts are the facts. Of course, I'm sure you'll counter something from Media Matters or MoveOn.org Let me ask, do you not see the difference between the obvious bias and almost outright hatred in the link you posted compared to reputable news sources. Even if you believe the major media has a bias, it is a subtle bias compared to the nonsense in your link.

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/23/2009 1:35:07 PM)
You'd think the NYT would be subtle about its bias. If that is true, then it is even more insidious. If it is false, as NOT just TimesWatch has claimed, but many others. Here ya go: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/The_New_York_Times_A_Year-Long_Analysis.asp http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/nyt-bias.htm and http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 Let's not also forget that TW just lists the articles that it deems are biased, just like Media Matters does. It it up to the individual to agree or disagree with their descriptions.

DomKen -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/23/2009 2:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/nyt-bias.htm A site that denies the Armenian genocide happened is one of your sources? And you think that lends crdibility to your claims?

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/23/2009 4:15:53 PM)
We aren't talking about the Armenian genocide...nice deflection attempt. Too bad you can't stay on topic. Always the case when people can't provide counter information to disprove a point. Hope that works out for you.... Tell me, are they wrong? Is there something in the story about the NYT that is incorrect? What about the other links? I see....you couldn't refute them either.

DomKen -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/23/2009 5:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush We aren't talking about the Armenian genocide...nice deflection attempt. Too bad you can't stay on topic. Always the case when people can't provide counter information to disprove a point. Hope that works out for you.... Tell me, are they wrong? Is there something in the story about the NYT that is incorrect? What about the other links? I see....you couldn't refute them either. One site is the MRC, a known extreme right wing group, one is a denier of a historical event. Why should I consider any claims they make? Of course it is amusing that the anti armenian site is complaining about the NYT coverage of turkey in 1911, which is of course terribly relevant to 2009. As to are they wrong, the MRC has been proven wrong numerous times and of course the anti armenian site claims there was no armenian genocide which is at variance with historical facts. As to refuting the others, I refuted 50% of your claims without wasting more than a couple of minutes. Are you really sure you want me to actually tear apart your other claims?

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/24/2009 5:14:34 PM)
Sure. Go for it. I'll find you some more "palatable" sources too. You prefer Media Matters?

DomKen -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/24/2009 5:24:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Sure. Go for it. I'll find you some more "palatable" sources too. You prefer Media Matters? For what? NYT bias? So you've switched gears and are now going to argue that the NYT has a right wing bias?

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/24/2009 6:20:42 PM)
tell ya what....here is as unbiased report of the bias as you'll find. (Oh wait, you never bother to provide any counter research. You attack and deflect. Never counter.) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355305775097542

DomKen -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/24/2009 8:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush tell ya what....here is as unbiased report of the bias as you'll find. (Oh wait, you never bother to provide any counter research. You attack and deflect. Never counter.) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355305775097542 I am not paying $10 to read this article. You need to provide something I can read and examine the claims not just a 1 paragraph abstract.

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/26/2009 4:57:34 PM)
Well, I guess there is no point in continuing. I gave you the link you asked for that showed media bias. Your failure to pursue it isn't my charge. You wanted something scholarly, but yet you don't want to pay for it. You can't counter; you refuse to explore. OK. 'nuff said. buh-bye

DomKen -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/26/2009 8:51:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Well, I guess there is no point in continuing. I gave you the link you asked for that showed media bias. Your failure to pursue it isn't my charge. You wanted something scholarly, but yet you don't want to pay for it. You can't counter; you refuse to explore. OK. 'nuff said. buh-bye What an interesting take on the Brave Sir Robin gambit. I ask for evdence and you present an abstract to an article to which I can find no later eferences, IOW no other scholar used it in any research. So I am justifiably curious as to the data contained in the article but you expect me to pay my money to prove you're wrong again? You made the claim so back it up. Since you've read the whole article, you wouldn't be basing anything on an abstract would you?, you'll be able to post exactly what length of time they sampled and the other pertinent details including whether they scored every think tank mentioned or worked from a pre determined list.

Crush -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/28/2009 8:00:39 AM)
Wow, You watch Monty Python...I'm supposed to be impressed? And so you resort to this ad-hominem attack instead of providing any refutation. Too bad you couldn't even bother to research the authors of the article to see if their data or paper was available elsewhere, as is often in the case of scholarly journals. So: You attack, but fail to provide counter evidence to the claim that the New York Times is liberally biased. You repeatedly ask for other sources and are provided one that is a scholarly article in a peer reviewed journal. You can't "bother" to do a bit of research...instead you decide to attack the messenger. No counter arguments. No counter evidence. No data to suggest that the current incarnation of the NYT isn't liberally biased, but is instead either neutral or otherwise biased. Got it. You can't be bothered to do anything but argue, based on your own opinions and prejudices. You claim "intellectual discussion" but actually just like to argue or opine. You've listened/watched Monty Python in the past, so you feel you can use an somewhat obscure reference to call names. Frankly, it means you aren't worth further time on my part. So please understand that in the future, I'm no longer going to respond to any of your baited posts. But I will suggest a website to help you further your pursuit, in the spirit of ad hominem: http://www.ehow.com/how_2000106_become-pseudo-intellectual.html

slvemike4u -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/28/2009 8:19:01 AM)
How about we discuss the merits of the article .....and leave the debate over the qualities of the paper to another thread?

DomKen -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/28/2009 3:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Wow, You watch Monty Python...I'm supposed to be impressed? And so you resort to this ad-hominem attack instead of providing any refutation. Too bad you couldn't even bother to research the authors of the article to see if their data or paper was available elsewhere, as is often in the case of scholarly journals. So: You attack, but fail to provide counter evidence to the claim that the New York Times is liberally biased. You repeatedly ask for other sources and are provided one that is a scholarly article in a peer reviewed journal. You can't "bother" to do a bit of research...instead you decide to attack the messenger. No counter arguments. No counter evidence. No data to suggest that the current incarnation of the NYT isn't liberally biased, but is instead either neutral or otherwise biased. Got it. You can't be bothered to do anything but argue, based on your own opinions and prejudices. You claim "intellectual discussion" but actually just like to argue or opine. You've listened/watched Monty Python in the past, so you feel you can use an somewhat obscure reference to call names. Frankly, it means you aren't worth further time on my part. So please understand that in the future, I'm no longer going to respond to any of your baited posts. But I will suggest a website to help you further your pursuit, in the spirit of ad hominem: http://www.ehow.com/how_2000106_become-pseudo-intellectual.html So you didn't read the article and can't provide any details of the actual research but expect me to simply accept an abstract? I think not. BTW an ad hominen attack is when someone attacks a person rather than the arguments. Noting your use of the Brave Sir Robin gmabit, declaring victory and declaring the debate over, is a comment on your actions/behaviour not an attack against you and is just as valid as pointing out any other logical fallacy you might commit. I will point out that you once again attempt to deploy this gambit in the above post as well.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: The Keystone Kops were in charge (4/28/2009 3:13:13 PM)
Ok you two, enough. XI

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875